If not for decades of Western - especially the United States' - racism and bigotry, legitimate elected governments would today decide and execute policy not only in Egypt, but probably also in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and other countries whose governments are today effectively Western colonies in the Middle East.

This blog examines the damage being done to hundreds of millions of people in the Middle East by that racism and bigotry.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

If a state was created by atrocities, etc, as Israel was, that does not lead to the conclusion that it should not exist. A hypothetical country with a pristine origin and history still does not have a right to exist. "Right to exist" itself is a term I've almost only seen used in pro-Israel propaganda. Can you think of a context other than Zionism where the term "right to exist" has even been used?

But Israel is not viable without the active oppression, today, of hundreds of millions of people in the Middle East who are not Jewish.

Iran is the most important strategic threat to Israel. The policies that make Iran threatening to Israel: its refusal to recognize or maintain ties with Israel, its support for anti-Israel groups and its efforts to increase its military capabilities are all popular with the Iranian people (PDF link).

To avoid that, the United States supports a dictatorship over Saudi Arabia's almost 30 million people. The United States does not need the dictatorship to sell oil. A democracy in Saudi Arabia would still sell oil. The United States needs a dictatorship to refrain from using the proceeds of oil sales to threaten Israel. A democracy in Saudi Arabia would not do that. The pro-US dictatorships over the tens of millions of people in Jordan, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and others in the Middle East in the same way are ultimately maintained today for the sake of Israel.

Aside, Iran would also have no problem selling oil to the US. The US blocks Iran's oil industry because, and only because, Iran uses or would use the proceeds of its oil sales to support anti-Israel groups. Historically the US oil lobby once competed against the US Israel lobby in an attempt to participate in Iran's oil industry. The oil lobby was defeated in a humiliating fashion.

Back to Israel. Most people in Israel's region consider Israel an injustice. That does not mean those most people in Israel's region hate Jews, any more than the African opposition to Apartheid South Africa could be explained by hatred for white people. But just as Americans offered rationalizations and justifications for US support for Apartheid South Africa that were not compelling to Black audiences; Israeli, American and other Western arguments for the necessity of Israel as a political majority Jewish state are reasonably not compelling to Middle Eastern audiences.

I'll point out that both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hassan Nasrallah have said that they favor Zionism ending by elections which put in place majority Muslim governments, not by killing anyone. That is how Apartheid ended. Supporters of Israel have a strong interest, because they disagree with the idea of Zionism ending the way Apartheid did, to present opponents of Zionism as more menacing and less reasonable then they are.

For the United States, in the face of the reasonable opposition of most of the people of the Middle East, maintaining Israel requires the active oppression, today, of the hundreds of millions of people in the region who are not Jewish.

For one example, the sanctions, invasion and occupation of Iraq that killed well over half a million Iraqi children would not have been necessary except that a powerful Iraq would threaten Israel more than Iran is acknowledged to today.

Again, the threat Iraq posed to the pro-US oil dictatorships, to the questionable degree that such a threat is real, is only threatening because the US needs those dictatorships for their cooperation with Israel, their refrain from using their resources to oppose Israel. The US does not need dictatorships to sell oil.

To sum up, Israel should not exist as a majority Jewish state not directly because its creation was illegal and immoral. Israel should not exist because its existence as a political majority Jewish state requires the active oppression, right now, of hundreds of millions of people who are not Jewish on behalf of fewer than six million Jewish Israelis.

34 comments:

лидия
said...

SA being a pro-USA oppressive regime is also a big spoiler of ME democracy via their money - they buy politicians in Lebanon, for ex, and now in Egypt and Tunis. The same is true about other pro-USA oil regimes, like Qatar. They do it mostly with USA support, of course. So, the end of USA-backed Saudi and other royals rule will be better for the overall state of democracy in the ME.

By the way, the talks about how all states were violently started is a red herring too. Israel is not just "a state". It is a settler colony on Palestinian land. It is more or less the last openly colony in the ME, so it must be ended as such.

It implies that if all these nations turned hostile towards israel, israel in turn would cease to exist.

But in the past multiple arab nations went to war with israel and the end result involved israel expanding its borders.

Most arabs certainly dont like israel, their states recognition of it and would prefer for it not to be there, however they are nonetheless realistic and recognise that israel isnt going anywhere soon.

Because of this most arabs would support peace with israel in return for the two state solution, although they are highly suspicious of israel and do not believe that israel will give up these territories easily.

Overall only a minority of arabs support fighting israel in oder to take all the land in the eastern Mediterranean region. Due to these facts, if all the countries in the region did follow their peoples views when it comes to israel, we would only see them take away their recognition but little else would happen.

Regarding the uncanny similarity between Israel and aparteid SA I strongly recommend "Escape from Pretoria" - the beginning.2 states are not good enough without FULL right of return, and Zionists would NEVER agree to it. So, 2 st, are sham, and the end of Zionism is a solution,Given Zionist crimes, it is astonishing that there is not so much anti-Jewish hate between Arabs,

You are very patient, Arnold.Samuel is just a garden variety Zionist who thinks that spin could save Zionist colony on Palestinian land

This is only one example of spin "Apartheid ceased to exist when all south african citizens were given the right to vote, israel already has this,it continues to exist, therefore what brought about apartheid's end doesnt apply to israel."

Palestinians who were not ethnic cleansed in 1947-48 (not out of lack of trying by Zionists) had "right to vote" even under military rule. For Samuel it is no aparteid. The funny thing, under SA aprteid some non-whites had the same "right" to vote for their own non-white "parliaments". I suppose, for Samuel it meant that they were NOT discriminated.

If the best defense of Zionism is so lame and ridiculous, I feel really sure that it is not to last much longer.

Your ability to process the viewpoints of others is somewhat lacking lidia.

Blacks not being able to vote in the main south african elections and have a say in the running of their country was discrimination.

This is obvious.

However arab citizens of israel do have the right to vote in the proper elections, what also affects the viewpoint of both yourself and arnold is that only a minority of israels arab citizens who actually live in israel consider their conditions as apartheid, most do not.

Whether israels existence is moral is a personal viewpoint, but the idea that its existence is illegal is wrong.

Under international law it is a legal state.

Norman Finkelstein has pointed out the flaw in such arguments and how such arguments actually help to strengthen certain israelis who themselves like to pick and choose parts of international law to their liking while ignoring the parts which they do not.

From Finkelstein " But international law is clear that Israel is a state having the same rights and obligations as any other state, and that the two-state settlement is the only basis for resolving the conflict."

"Yes. If one picks and chooses with international law, it enables Israel’s apologists to claim that the Palestinian solidarity movement is hypocritical and not to be trusted."

These are good points to note for those concerned in furthering the cause of helping the palestinian people.

The issue is whether israel is a legal state, you claimed otherwise but this doesnt hold out when one observes the rules and facts of international law.

By doing this you help to allow the likes of israeli settlers who also pick and choose parts of international law to further their own illegal goals.

In order to prove finkelstein as wrong you would have to show that he is mistaken when he claimed that israel was a legal state.

This has not been done....

Due to both south africa and israel being legal states they have the right to exist, they however do not have the right to create policies which deprives a number of its citizens with the right to vote.

The anc and hamas also arent the most comparable of groups, the anc supported the existence of south africa, they just wanted everyone to have the right to vote.

If an anc style group came about in israel they would support israels right to exist just as the anc did with south africa, they would just want everyone to have a vote.

The ANC did not support South Africa's right to exist as a white state. If Israel accepts the refugees and allows the majority muslim population to vote for a government, all of Hamas' demands, and those of most people in the region will have been met by that failure and defeat of Zionism.

The ANC explicitly rejected a multiple state solution and the right for a white state to exist.

You can respond once more before I feel your position has been expressed and further posts by you in this thread deleted.

In your last response, maybe you can provide a quotation of me that shows what you are talking about here: "The issue is whether israel is a legal state, you claimed otherwise "

"The ANC did not support South Africa's right to exist as a white state."

They did not, they did however support the existence of their nation itself, they just wanted everyone to have a vote, ergo an israeli version of the anc would do the same, it would support the right of its nation to exist but also advocate the rights of others to be able to vote.

Israeli arabs however have the right to vote already, this puts a bit of a dent in the israel-south african analogy.

"allows the majority muslim population to vote for a government"

A problem here, the majority of israelis are jews, even the majority of israeli arabs do not support the end of the israeli state.

"The ANC explicitly rejected a multiple state solution and the right for a white state to exist."

No doubt and israeli version would also be against israel being broken up.

The actual anc itself is not against the existence of israel and is supportive of steps which it feels will lead to a two state solution as shown by their press releases.

>We congratulate the Palestinian people for being granted a new non-member observer status in the UN General Assembly. We view this as an important step towards the attainment of a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine.

ANC Press Statement.

"In your last response, maybe you can provide a quotation of me that shows what you are talking about here: "The issue is whether israel is a legal state, you claimed otherwise "

They are those who see israel as being legal and those who see the opposite.

In life one sometimes has to communicate with those that hold different views, this is healthy otherwise one will find oneself caught in an echo chamber.

In regards to apartheid as Richard Goldstone has pointed out

"In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: “Inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.

To be sure, there is more de facto separation between Jewish and Arab populations than Israelis should accept. Much of it is chosen by the communities themselves. Some results from discrimination. But it is not apartheid, which consciously enshrines separation as an ideal. In Israel, equal rights are the law, the aspiration and the ideal; inequities are often successfully challenged in court."

No doubt they are discriminatory practices in israel as they are in many countries, but their isnt an overall systematic plan operating for the sole purpose of keeping groups separate, it is why arabs in israel do have a vote, so if they are discriminatory practices they can be challenged.

George, every settler colony needs slaves or semi-slaves. Zionists from the beginning tried to import enough Yemeni Jews in order not to hire Palestinians. They still were not enough to man all menial jobs.. Now Zionists are importing workers from Europe (Romania), Asia and so on. Even though a lot of former Russian professionals with uni and higher qualifications turned cleaners in this "Jewish" state, Zionists still need a lot of workforce for dirty and dangerous jobs. Now they are whining about Africans threatening their racial purity (sounds familiar?). On the other hand, there were reports about Palestinians in Israel welcoming Africans into their communities.

In short, as usual, Zionism looks even more aparteid-like than some would think.

You may be right, but I thought the main characteristic of "undesirable" jobs is not that they are dirty or dangerous (many workers in dirty or dangerous jobs have/had great pride in their work) but that they failed to pay a reliable living wage due to being inherently part-time (such as cleaning jobs) and/or seasonal (such as agricultural and tourism-related jobs).

Regrettably, the issue has now moved beyond Palestine and any resolution, be it two states or a bi-national state. Now the issue is US/EU direct involvement to ensure everlasting Israeli dominance throughout the entire region. This started with the US invasion of Iraq, continued with the 'no fly zone' over Libya and is now about the destabilization of Syria.

In other words the US/EU plan on behalf of Israel is to mire the entire region in sectarian strife and to break down the stronger states into mini-statelets, easily manipulated or blackmailed. The project has come up against a strong wall in Syria and hopefully, it will be turned back. If it is not, the cancer will spread to EVERY country in the region. Including those nations which, by close association with the United States, thought they would be spared. Meaning that, after Syria, Jordan will be destabilized in order to allow the ethnic cleansing of more Palestinians from Israel. King Abdullah, either through stupidity, cowardice, or simply because he has no choice, will help tie the noose that will be used to hang him. Saudi Arabia could be next. While one cannot imagine a more docile and submissive handmaiden to US policies, there is simply no telling when a revolution might bring a Khomeini like figure to power. From the US/Israeli point of view, no need to take chances.

Hence the importance of the battle in Syria and why Iran and Hezbollah, hopefully with continued Russian help, will commit whatever resources are needed to win.

Ashkenazi Jews are supposedly considerably more intelligent (120 IQ) than the average. Why haven't they used this high intelligence as the Japanese (another highly xenophobic society) have done, and developed robots to eliminate the need for any kind of immigrant labour?

IQ is a sham, and I hope you use it only as a joke. And robots are expensive, and cannot be used profitably in some cases, or agrobusiness in USA, for ex, would be rid of "undesirable" Latinos for good long ago. Of course, the racism of Zionists are a big driver, but still they live in capitalism and need some profit (even with all foreign money they got)

Would you agree that the Welsh live under aparteid laws? Are they not permitted to marry the Welsh from abroad of Welles? Are they called "demographic threat" to German state by the officials of such state? Is there a campaign to prevent German girls marry or date the Welsh? And so on...You see, the difference between Palestinians in Israel and, say, Chechens in Russia is that Chechens have the same citizen status as Russians in in Russian Federation. There could be problems, a lot of them, but Russia is NOT an aparteid state.

Sure, but Zionist Jews are colonial settlers in Palestine. And Anglo-Saxes were Germanic but Wells is not an "English" colony (even though Ireland was), so you could read my answer as being about "Germanic" girls and so on.

Hundreds of millions? The population of Palestine when Israel was established was less then a million. And about 40% 0f that small population was jewish. Yes, people were displaced, but hundreds of millions is a gross exaggeration.

You didn't read the original post carefully. Choose at least one sentence in the original post, quote it from the initial capital letter until the closing period, and explain why you believe that sentence is incorrect. If you are unable to do that, then you do not have a substantial disagreement with the actual statements of the post.